So, let's see. Andrew Sullivan is wrong to criticize the coercive shame-tactics of gay activists in pressuring Eich to resign because Eich contributed to Pat Buchanan's presidential campaign? The logic being that applying unethical behavior to fight unethical behavior is acceptable because the final Jenga piece in Eich's tower was his support of a radical right-wing (by today's standards, though then he was not considered out of the mainstream) politician 22 years ago and not his contribution to Prop 8 or the outrage that it caused?

It's ethical to shame shameful behavior.

Yeah, the catch, as always, is who gets to decide what's "shameful".

If retroactively attempting to revoke and invalidate marriage, a right enjoyed by everyone ("except fuck you in particular, faggot" - Prop 8) isn't shameful, then I don't know what is.

And you missed it, too. Sergei has it, but nobody is listening to him, either.

The new majority of opinion (that I'm happy and thankful to see, as I've asserted repeatedly), is now, very unfortunately, using the very same tools and methods as the one they worked so hard to replace.

We haven't learned a thing. Different moral selection, same old jack-booted methods.

Quote:

It's ethical to shame shameful behavior.

The very same words could've been said twenty years ago by the most raging homophobe in the world, and probably were.

Jesus, you people scare me.

No, you've missed the point - they did say that, and they were wrong, and we're just now trying to correct that wrong. It took circa 100 years to get rid of slavery, and this is next. We're evolving our understanding of the underlying tenets of our country. If you don't like it, move to Uganda.

It's always easy to rationalize bad behavior with moral self-righteousness. In fact, that's pretty much how it always happens.

So this is the tolerance you espouse? If I don't like what you like, I should go live in Uganda?

You and the other dumb pieces of shit misappropriating this kind of inflammatory metaphor keep forgetting that actual jack-boots have been used to deny homosexuals and other minorities their rights. They have not been used to protect them. They are NOT being used to protect them. There is nothing "jack-booted" about what happened around this Mozilla scuffle. Eich used the power of the state to strip LGBT same-sex couples of their civil rights. If anybody is going to start using the term "jack-booted" around here, it's should not be applied to those who used their entirely personal rather than political means to affect a positive social change.

Eich was a bigot who wanted to deny same-sex couples their legal rights. People pointed out that this did not make him a good fit for Mozilla Corp. CEO, because of the company's own ideological and political objectives. It's not "jack-booted" to recognize the problem and take steps to deal with it. Trying to paint rights supporters as fascist bigots is completely shameful (there's that word again). Your understanding of history, society, politics, and activism is embarrassingly shallow. It's regrettable that you don't even seem to care. You really should quit now instead of digging yourself deeper.

I'm totally tolerant of you pounding away on your keyboard, flaunting your bigotry all day. Knock yourself out, I enjoy the dialogue. I invited you to find someplace else to live only insofar as you think it's necessary or good to codify your outdated and unfair opinions into law. Plus, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. "Derp, if you want communist healthcare move to Canada or Europe, you commie!" Where have I heard that before...?

I hope Eich learns that codifying inequality into law on this issue is no longer acceptable to many of us when pursuing future endeavors.

I hope those who are celebrating now are prepared for the inevitable consequences of this witch hunt: politicians and courts will take notice of the fact that people's donations to politicians and political causes are now being used to publicly shame them and strip them of employment, and so in response all transparency of political donations will be gradually removed. More money, and increasingly anonymous money, will flow into politics as a result of this inevitable obfuscation. That can only be good for politics and the long-term health of our government, right? Right??? Have fun destabilizing public discourse and representative democracy, one well-meaning but narrow-scoped victory at a time.

Was already happening anyway.

The Court, however, has found that when exercising the right to legislate (apparently distinct from mere voting or speech?), there is no right to secrecy.

This will change either legislatively or judicially before long, and this sort of activism to use one's political donations to advocate personal harm to the donor will be cited as a direct reason for the change. It'll probably change legislatively, since it threatens politician's pockets, and then such laws will be upheld judicially--at both levels citing incidents like Eich's as justifications.

If the law is too broad it will also apply to posters in this very thread talking about guns, too.

IE, threatening violent action over free speech is a superset of activism over political donations.

To protest this lynching my years of advocating for Mozilla are over. I will no longer expend time and effort coding and testing for Mozilla in the software I write.

Hopefully Eich and others who care more about tech than stirring a political pot will create a new project for free thinkers to rally around. A project where people can be gay, or not, and that's ok. A project where people are passionate about tech, and leave their other baggage at the door.

That is a beauty of open source. We can leave behind organizations which have lost their way and start over.

I implore you to research all of the what he has done not just to hurt gay rights, but equal rights for black people and jewish people as well. Everything from donating to racist politicians and anti civil rights causes to giving speeches in promotion of such acts. You'd feel differently if you were the target.

I had not heard allegations beyond prop 8. Despicable if true. However I now view Mozilla, like Wikipedia before it, as a former tech project hijacked by activists determined to make political points. It sucks watching great projects built by the tech community ruined by ass hats with an agenda. Both projects are on my do not use, advocate for, or contribute to list.

So, let's see. Andrew Sullivan is wrong to criticize the coercive shame-tactics of gay activists in pressuring Eich to resign because Eich contributed to Pat Buchanan's presidential campaign? The logic being that applying unethical behavior to fight unethical behavior is acceptable because the final Jenga piece in Eich's tower was his support of a radical right-wing (by today's standards, though then he was not considered out of the mainstream) politician 22 years ago and not his contribution to Prop 8 or the outrage that it caused?

It's ethical to shame shameful behavior.

Ends justify the means as long as it's for your side, right? Why am I not surprised.

So, let's see. Andrew Sullivan is wrong to criticize the coercive shame-tactics of gay activists in pressuring Eich to resign because Eich contributed to Pat Buchanan's presidential campaign? The logic being that applying unethical behavior to fight unethical behavior is acceptable because the final Jenga piece in Eich's tower was his support of a radical right-wing (by today's standards, though then he was not considered out of the mainstream) politician 22 years ago and not his contribution to Prop 8 or the outrage that it caused?

It's ethical to shame shameful behavior.

Ends justify the means as long as it's for your side, right? Why am I not surprised.

Feel free to shame me as soon as you hear me publicly say that we should rip up the marriage licenses of everyone with blond hair, or everyone who is Christian, or everyone who prefers chess over checkers.

If my active and public opinion on marijuana legalization was at odds with the culture of my workplace, I accept that this could harm my promotion prospects. Because I live in the real world.

Because you're an idiot. If you were dismissed (or forced to resign) on that basis, you would have grounds for an unlawful dismissal suit. Which, it seems, you don't think applies if you happen not to agree with the beliefs involved.

It's my understanding that you're a graphic designer and business owner, not a lawyer specializing in wrongful termination suits.

And you are such an attorney? Appeal to Authority much? Please, regale us with your personal wisdom in this subject.

You're the one that called me an "idiot," then made an unsourced claim of legal fact.

I, on the other hand, have merely posted a couple links and said it's my understanding the political affiliation is not a protected class, and that at-will employees can probably legally be let go on such grounds....

Actually, in terms of employment, political affiliation is EXACTLY a protected class. You can't discriminate upon it. Although that doesn't seem to apply at Mozilla.

So, let's see. Andrew Sullivan is wrong to criticize the coercive shame-tactics of gay activists in pressuring Eich to resign because Eich contributed to Pat Buchanan's presidential campaign? The logic being that applying unethical behavior to fight unethical behavior is acceptable because the final Jenga piece in Eich's tower was his support of a radical right-wing (by today's standards, though then he was not considered out of the mainstream) politician 22 years ago and not his contribution to Prop 8 or the outrage that it caused?

It's ethical to shame shameful behavior.

Ends justify the means as long as it's for your side, right? Why am I not surprised.

Feel free to shame me as soon as you hear me publicly say that we should rip up the marriage licenses of everyone with blond hair, or everyone who is Christian, or everyone who prefers chess over checkers.

See, that's the difference between you and me. I'm not interested in shaming you, no matter what you believe.

Feel free to shame me as soon as you hear me publicly say that we should rip up the marriage licenses of everyone with blond hair, or everyone who is Christian, or everyone who prefers chess over checkers.

How about you state some less facile political views? I'm sure that half the audience would want to shame you for your position on abortion, whichever way you fall.

Or maybe this kind of behaviour has made us all less likely to be open about our beliefs if they fall outside of what we think the majority will find acceptable.

A man stands up for his personal belief of traditional marriage and he's labelled a bigot? It's bad for society when a family has a mother and a father?

Society is where it is today because the family unit is being destroyed by queers and their enablers.

WTF???? Seriously, W T F ???? Puke.

Sure, we need to be tolerant. We need to be understanding. I get all that. But I get pissed when I can't express my own values on what I see to be wrong with society. Because I might hurt your feelings? Really? Boo hoo. Go fuck yourself.

Civil union? You bet, I have no problem with that. Just don't call it a marriage, because it isn't.

Flame away.

Quite the tolerant tone, there.

From the perspective of a gay person, legally married in California, on the day after Prop 8 passed due in some small part to Eich's actions:

Quote:

My point is that I'm being askedforced to suppress my own values. I have no problems with the LBGTChristian community as long as they don't get in my face about it or trample on my own rights. We're all human and all worthy of respect.

Is it more clear to you now?

I think I understand your issues well enough. But your problem is with the Christian community.

And I suppose climate change, vaccination, and 9/11 "Truth" are all just matters of opinion as well, eh?

Postmodernist cultural relativist BS.

Hint: Facts are convergent. 9.8 m/sec^2 doesn't care whether you're a poet or a pickpocket. Try jumping off a high place some day and then tell us gravity is a matter of opinion too, if you can get a good wifi connection while waiting for the doctor to patch you up. Good luck!

As you will not be waiting at the bottom of the high place, I have to decline the invitation. They need more people to look for the lost plane at the bottom of the ocean. Maybe you d’ feel at home there or uncover a new conspiracy?

Back on topic : even there you still have the right to vote and donate as you believe is right. As does mr. Eich. But boy it’s become a toss-up who has the more convoluted view on gay marriage, him or you.

Gay marriage is becoming normal these days, recently the UK with special festivities etc.. I wondered why this was such a problem in the USA. But with you shouting that anybody voting against your wishes is (borderline) criminal and should jump from a high place etc.. That sure will encourage people to vote for something that simple. So please do the gay but yet unmarried people a favour and go the dark place. It has no wifi, but we won’t be sad if we don’t here from you for a while. Have a nice stay!

So does anyone know of a politics free browser? One that focuses on the merit of contributors and not their point of view?

Safari. Chrome. IE.

Well, except that Apple and Google donated to the fight against Prop. 8. Not exactly politics-free.

I guess the difference is both Apple and Google were exercising the same rights that Eich was practicing. I'm sure both Google and Apple have people that support the viewpoint of prop 8 but haven't been run out of the company because of it. I guess an example of turning everything aorund would be if we ever have someone rise through the ranks of Chick-fil-A that is a qualified at their job and have always been an asset to the company but had fought prop 8 and ends up being pressured to step down we would have something similar.

You and the other dumb pieces of shit misappropriating this kind of inflammatory metaphor keep forgetting that actual jack-boots have been used to deny homosexuals and other minorities their rights....

So, time for retribution, eh? Is that it?

"See how YOU like it" is the highest form of hypocrisy in the history of Mankind.

A man stands up for his personal belief of traditional marriage and he's labelled a bigot? It's bad for society when a family has a mother and a father?

Society is where it is today because the family unit is being destroyed by queers and their enablers.

WTF???? Seriously, W T F ???? Puke.

Sure, we need to be tolerant. We need to be understanding. I get all that. But I get pissed when I can't express my own values on what I see to be wrong with society. Because I might hurt your feelings? Really? Boo hoo. Go fuck yourself.

Civil union? You bet, I have no problem with that. Just don't call it a marriage, because it isn't.

Flame away.

Quite the tolerant tone, there.

From the perspective of a gay person, legally married in California, on the day after Prop 8 passed due in some small part to Eich's actions:

Quote:

My point is that I'm being askedforced to suppress my own values. I have no problems with the LBGTChristian community as long as they don't get in my face about it or trample on my own rights. We're all human and all worthy of respect.

Is it more clear to you now?

I think I understand your issues well enough. But your problem is with the Christian community.

Possibly. If that makes the thought exercise less clear, I apologize and suggest you could substitute "Christian" for "whoever voted for Prop 8".

I guess the difference is both Apple and Google were exercising the same rights that Eich was practicing.

Not exactly, no. They were fighting for equality - for the rights of gays to marry to be retained. Eich was fighting to strip them of their equality - to relegate them to a lesser status than straight people.

See, that's the difference between you and me. I'm not interested in shaming you, no matter what you believe.

Oh, you're so persecuted! Do you think people just woke up one day and decided "hey, let's ask this guy to step down from his job"? They didn't. They did it in direct response to the confluence of a) his actions coming to light (apparently reported by the LA Times in 2012), plus b) his appointment to an influential position of a company that holds views diametrically opposed to his.

I'm totally tolerant of you pounding away on your keyboard, flaunting your bigotry all day. Knock yourself out, I enjoy the dialogue. I invited you to find someplace else to live only insofar as you think it's necessary or good to codify your outdated and unfair opinions into law. Plus, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. "Derp, if you want communist healthcare move to Canada or Europe, you commie!" Where have I heard that before...?

Wait... Now I'M a bigot? I voted against Prop 8. I support gay marriage. I've said that quite a number of times already. But since I disagree with you about the situation with Eich, I'm branded a bigot?

You have an interesting, and seemingly all-too-flexible, definition of that word.

And now you're divining my stance on healthcare and, seemingly, my political affiliations from my stance about Eich? You've probably just set the world record for jumping to (unjustified) conclusions.

So, it really is, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." It really is, "See how YOU like it!"

First of all, we're nominally adults here. Second of all, attacking your opponent with the tools you hate to have used upon yourself is tremendously high hypocrisy.

So does anyone know of a politics free browser? One that focuses on the merit of contributors and not their point of view?

Safari. Chrome. IE.

Well, except that Apple and Google donated to the fight against Prop. 8. Not exactly politics-free.

I guess the difference is both Apple and Google were exercising the same rights that Eich was practicing.

Yes they were. And their employees, shareholders, and customers all have the exact same right to speak out against those donations that Mozilla's employees, partners, and customers have been exercising. And those corporations would be within their rights to act on those complaints, or not. And people would be free to react to their actions either way.

You and the other dumb pieces of shit misappropriating this kind of inflammatory metaphor keep forgetting that actual jack-boots have been used to deny homosexuals and other minorities their rights....

So, time for retribution, eh? Is that it?"See how YOU like it" is the highest form of hypocrisy in the history of Mankind.

Except I'm saying it's NOT retribution, and nobody used any jack-booted tactics to force Eich out. Which you might have noticed if you hasn't snipped the rest of that sentence.

When I argued against your point, I didn't just ignore everything beyond the ellipses. I dealt with it. Just like last night, you refuse to deal with any substantial point I'm raising in response to you. This is bad-faith conduct and at this point I'm simply going to ignore you. You have nothing to offer.

Except when it doesn't. History shows it's more like the arc of a pendulum--and we're well on the upswing. We're probably enjoying the good life in the global historical 0.01% of tolerance right this second. The problem is, people tend to always have this "end of history" mindset--whether it's believing that Athens will stand as it does forever, that the Second Coming of Jesus is right around the corner, or that our secular tolerance can only continue to increase. Meanwhile, demographics and shifting ideologies creep relentlessly in new ways the outcomes of which can't be predicted.

I sometimes view our civilization as this magnificent set of cultural technologies and social, political, and economic superstructures which come together to form a civilizational machine none of us individually can fully comprehend. I do however worry that too many of us lack a well-rounded liberal education suitable to give us at least an idea of how it all works together, such that we mindlessly hammer on every bit that gets in our way or looks out of place without an idea of the damage we may be doing. We're like one of those civilizations in scifi works who live in a magnificant technological structure built by their ancestors, but who no longer understand the underlying technology. Once something goes wrong with the tech... And in our case, once we no longer have sufficient education on Enlightenment principles...

So, let's see. Andrew Sullivan is wrong to criticize the coercive shame-tactics of gay activists in pressuring Eich to resign because Eich contributed to Pat Buchanan's presidential campaign? The logic being that applying unethical behavior to fight unethical behavior is acceptable because the final Jenga piece in Eich's tower was his support of a radical right-wing (by today's standards, though then he was not considered out of the mainstream) politician 22 years ago and not his contribution to Prop 8 or the outrage that it caused?

It's ethical to shame shameful behavior.

Ends justify the means as long as it's for your side, right? Why am I not surprised.

Feel free to shame me as soon as you hear me publicly say that we should rip up the marriage licenses of everyone with blond hair, or everyone who is Christian, or everyone who prefers chess over checkers.

Firstly because you've got an awfully shallow and literal reading of those scriptures. They simply do not mean what you seem to think they mean. Personally I don't eat shrimp because I think they're disgusting scavangers, but if I was living in Saudi Arabia, for example, I might well not eat pork or drink alcohol, because it is the right of a country to make these laws.

What's so wrong with a litteral reading of the bible? Oh, perhaps you mean that you are free to interpret it? How very convenient! Why would then your interpretation rule over other people? Why are not their interpretations allowed the same benefit? How can you not see the hypocrisy in that? Here you are, arguing that your interpretation of your religion should rule over other people. How can you form a coherent world-view in your mind considering this?

It doesn't matter. In the US, NO interpretation of ANY religion should rule over other people. This is not a theocracy.

Wait... Now I'M a bigot? I voted against Prop 8. I support gay marriage. I've said that quite a number of times already. But since I disagree with you about the situation with Eich, I'm branded a bigot?

So does anyone know of a politics free browser? One that focuses on the merit of contributors and not their point of view?

Safari. Chrome. IE.

Well, except that Apple and Google donated to the fight against Prop. 8. Not exactly politics-free.

I guess the difference is both Apple and Google were exercising the same rights that Eich was practicing.

Yes they were. And their employees, shareholders, and customers all have the exact same right to speak out against those donations that Mozilla's employees, partners, and customers have been exercising. And those corporations would be within their rights to act on those complaints, or not. And people would be free to react to their actions either way.

You and the other dumb pieces of shit misappropriating this kind of inflammatory metaphor keep forgetting that actual jack-boots have been used to deny homosexuals and other minorities their rights....

So, time for retribution, eh? Is that it?"See how YOU like it" is the highest form of hypocrisy in the history of Mankind.

Except I'm saying it's NOT retribution, and nobody used any jack-booted tactics to force Eich out. Which you might have noticed if you hasn't snipped the rest of that sentence.

When I argued against your point, I didn't just ignore everything beyond the ellipses. I dealt with it. Just like last night, you refuse to deal with any substantial point I'm raising in response to you. This is bad-faith conduct and at this point I'm simply going to ignore you. You have nothing to offer.

I'm totally tolerant of you pounding away on your keyboard, flaunting your bigotry all day. Knock yourself out, I enjoy the dialogue. I invited you to find someplace else to live only insofar as you think it's necessary or good to codify your outdated and unfair opinions into law. Plus, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. "Derp, if you want communist healthcare move to Canada or Europe, you commie!" Where have I heard that before...?

Wait... Now I'M a bigot? I voted against Prop 8. I support gay marriage. I've said that quite a number of times already. But since I disagree with you about the situation with Eich, I'm branded a bigot?

You have an interesting, and seemingly all-too-flexible, definition of that word.

And now you're divining my stance on healthcare and, seemingly, my political affiliations from my stance about Eich? You've probably just set the world record for jumping to (unjustified) conclusions.

So, it really is, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." It really is, "See how YOU like it!"

First of all, we're nominally adults here. Second of all, attacking your opponent with the tools you hate to have used upon yourself is tremendously high hypocrisy.

You're making a stellar example of yourself.

This a million times. Bigot is thrown around a lot for someone that may merely disagree. It's a go to word of the left just like racist often times is. Don't worry thought the right is learning how to play too.

Basically it's the same feeling of annoyance that some have shown over the terms lynch and jack-booted. I expect to see lynch and mob used a lot when referring to Eich in the future.

[This will change either legislatively or judicially before long, and this sort of activism to use one's political donations to advocate personal harm to the donor will be cited as a direct reason for the change. It'll probably change legislatively, since it threatens politician's pockets, and then such laws will be upheld judicially--at both levels citing incidents like Eich's as justifications.

Dude, people's opinions on hot-button issues have been cause for termination since hot-button issues have been around. It is, part and parcel, a part of the concept of freedom of association. The default position is, and has always been, that your speech can and will have consequences. This isn't news. It isn't surprising. It is the way things have worked since our society was founded.

I urge you to read this and try applying the logic there to this case.

The melodrama you want to wring out of a fairly standard case of "everybody gets to speak their mind" isn't borne out by reality.

It's been 227 years since we signed the Constitution. Throughout that time, we've enjoyed freedom of speech and freedom of association. Why, suddenly, right now, is that going to threaten the balance of power? People have used political donations as weapons in political attack ads for as long as I can remember.

It's hard to argue a slippery slope when we've been firmly planted on the slope for a couple of centuries without problem.

I must say I'm disappointed but not surprised. Why destroy someone's career over his personal values, especially when he made clear that they would have no bearing on his work in technology?

Because his "personal values" make him a bigot. If someone were a racist in their personal life, do you think that racial bias is absent in the rest of their decision making (personal, professional or whatever)? It's ultimately one (complex) neural network - one mind.

So then all Christians that feel the same way as Eich are also bigots? Sorry but we are not, as our faith tells us that marriage is between one man and one women. That is not bigotry that is defining marriage traditionally as between a man and a woman. Eich has worked for Mozilla for over 15 years, and those views did not just evolve over night, as they were ingrained by his faith. He manged to keep them out of his corporate life and was only made public when he was made CEO. It never affected the way he ran his department so how would it affect the way he ran the company? Because GLAAD and a lot of the gay community is Christian-phobic?

Your faith denies people equal rights.

That is blatently illegal according to the civil rights acts and the 8th amendment of the constitution, and your attempts to impose your belief is also illegal according to the 1st amendment of the constitution.

I mean, can you see that? That 200 years ago it might have been 'your faith' that tells you that black people are subhuman and that caring for them as animals and property would be the best for them?

Just because it's ingrained by your faith doesn't make it right.

The 8th Amendment? You mean the one that reads "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Please enlighten me on who this has anything to do with marriage? It does not, and neither does to civil rights act. My religion does not deny equal rights, it deny's marriage to same sex partners, just as it deny s marriage to multiple wives or husbands. Should that ban be lifted too? Is that what the gay community is really striving for, multiple spouses?

The 1st Amendment protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference, which you are trying to legislate my faith into allowing same sex marriage,. Which is a direct violation of the 1st amendment. I am not attempting to impose my beliefs on anyone, it is the gay community that is attempting to impose their beliefs on me and other Christians and people of faith. Do you not see the hypocrisy in your statement?

This a million times. Bigot is thrown around a lot for someone that may merely disagree.

It's being used here to describe the opinion that same-sex couples shouldn't have the same right to marriage that straight couples do. How is that NOT bigotry, by definition? All throughout these half-dozen threads with their dozens of pages, people have tried to reduce Eich's bigoted politics to simply "a different opinion." This is not like disagreeing on whether to lower sales tax and raise property taxes or vice-versa, this is about a measure designed to take away people's civil rights. Everybody who ignores this fact in order to pretend that Eich's political views were NOT bigoted is simply not honestly engaging in this discussion or basing their ideas on reality.

It's selective, willful ignorance. That approach is pretty much always a bad idea when you want to understand how things are; it's only useful when you want to reject reality and substitute your own.

Wait... Now I'M a bigot? I voted against Prop 8. I support gay marriage. I've said that quite a number of times already. But since I disagree with you about the situation with Eich, I'm branded a bigot?

Prop 8 got on the ballot through the regular, legal pathway. It garnered enough signatures to be put forward as an initiative on the California ballot. Some people supported it. I didn't. Last I checked, that's how the process is supposed to work. Someone puts forward a proposed law, rational or asinine, and the people vote on it. The vote may or may not be challenged in court, and eventually a binding opinion will be reached as the will of society.

That's what happened to Prop 8.

Or are you actually saying that, because I believe in the right of the people to put forward initiatives to the vote of their fellow citizens, I'm somehow "tolerant of 'their' bigotry"? One assumes you mean "their" as a pejorative here.

Are you saying that we should only get to vote on things one group (even if they are a majority) says are moral and justified? How do you think that's going to play out?

I'm not comfortable with how this turned out. Instead of pushing a man to change his mind, I fear that all this will do is cause people to harden their own opinions...and give Eich a reason, valid or otherwise, to be their poster boy.

Yes, his opinions were reprehensible, no argument whatsoever - but lynch mobs are never the answer. The board members who resigned for their actions took the higher road on this one once they found out what he did; hopefully that can be used as a lesson to be learned.

Why? Because he practiced his First Amendment right by supporting California's Proposition 8 in 2008, defining marriage traditionally as between a man and a woman? “I don't want to talk about my personal beliefs because I kept them out of Mozilla all these 15 years we've been going,” Eich said Wednesday. Others weren't so benevolent. Eich's $1,000 donation was made public in 2012 thanks to the LA Times, and proponents of same-sex marriage, including company employees, colluded to demand Eich's ousting lest he “make an unequivocal statement of support for marriage equality,” a petition reads. Note that, just like the Chick-fil-A controversy, he's being cast as a bigot for simply believing in the traditional view of marriage; nobody's accusing Eich of practicing discrimination. Yet supporters pride themselves as shepherds of “tolerance” and “inclusiveness”? Interestingly, lefty Andrew Sullivan was one of the few openly homosexual individuals to denounce this ridiculous lynching: “If this is the gay rights movement today … then count me out,” he said. By the way, until 2012, Barack Obama was on Eich's side. Just saying.

Eich wasn't lynched, and the people who wanted him to resign weren't a lynch mob. A mob? Maybe, but not lynch mob. Eich wasn't murdered by a group of angry people. I doubt you are trying to be inflammatory, but the language is. People who didn't like Eich, for whatever their reasons, used their rights to speak out against him and Mozilla, and they happen to be successful. That is in no way, similar to actually murdering someone.

No, they did not murder him. Just his career. Just his ability to hold a position for which he was qualified and to earn a living doing so. There isn't a large company anywhere that will hire him for a similar position again, certainly for years, possibly ever.

This mob has effectively destroyed a man's life. But no, they didn't "murder" him.

That makes it so much better. /s

Yes, being pushed out of a CEO position is having one's "life destroyed."

Some days I wonder how the 99.9999999% of non-CEO Americans get through the day.

I'm not comfortable with how this turned out. Instead of pushing a man to change his mind, I fear that all this will do is cause people to harden their own opinions...and give Eich a reason, valid or otherwise, to be their poster boy.

Yes, his opinions were reprehensible, no argument whatsoever - but lynch mobs are never the answer. The board members who resigned for their actions took the higher road on this one once they found out what he did; hopefully that can be used as a lesson to be learned.

Why? Because he practiced his First Amendment right by supporting California's Proposition 8 in 2008, defining marriage traditionally as between a man and a woman? “I don't want to talk about my personal beliefs because I kept them out of Mozilla all these 15 years we've been going,” Eich said Wednesday. Others weren't so benevolent. Eich's $1,000 donation was made public in 2012 thanks to the LA Times, and proponents of same-sex marriage, including company employees, colluded to demand Eich's ousting lest he “make an unequivocal statement of support for marriage equality,” a petition reads. Note that, just like the Chick-fil-A controversy, he's being cast as a bigot for simply believing in the traditional view of marriage; nobody's accusing Eich of practicing discrimination. Yet supporters pride themselves as shepherds of “tolerance” and “inclusiveness”? Interestingly, lefty Andrew Sullivan was one of the few openly homosexual individuals to denounce this ridiculous lynching: “If this is the gay rights movement today … then count me out,” he said. By the way, until 2012, Barack Obama was on Eich's side. Just saying.[/quote]

Eich wasn't lynched, and the people who wanted him to resign weren't a lynch mob. A mob? Maybe, but not lynch mob. Eich wasn't murdered by a group of angry people. I doubt you are trying to be inflammatory, but the language is. People who didn't like Eich, for whatever their reasons, used their rights to speak out against him and Mozilla, and they happen to be successful. That is in no way, similar to actually murdering someone.[/quote]

No, they did not murder him. Just his career. Just his ability to hold a position for which he was qualified and to earn a living doing so. There isn't a large company anywhere that will hire him for a similar position again, certainly for years, possibly ever.

This mob has effectively destroyed a man's life. But no, they didn't "murder" him.

That makes it so much better. /s[/quote]

Are you really lamenting the fact that a very skilled man who voluntarily resigned from his job of CEO because of some public outcry is so hopeless that he might as well be dead?

Are we Americans so god-damned entitled that we think this is a reasonable thing to believe?

villanim wrote:

And good job taking something out of context, just like a typical liberal.

The only people taking things out of context are the people using the term "lynching". Whether it be you (and I apologize if I put words in your mouth), Andrew Sullivan or anyone else for that matter.[/quote]

And that is the problem as GLAAD and most of the gay community is not Christian-phobic, as you cannot be Christian and practice your beliefs, as those beliefs are entirely opposite of GLAAD's views. Which then make you the enemy, ask Eich, ask the CEO of Chick-fil-A, just ask anyone who believes in defining marriage traditionally as between a man and a woman. You end up on the wrong side of GLAAD and the gay community just for practicing your faith. Why has GLAAD not attacked Muslims yet, only Christians, as if any faith or people are homophobic it is Muslims.[/quote]

I guess the argument is, is banning certain people from marriage "practicing" your belief? If it is, then I really don't see the problem with the people you are trying to ban being upset with that. If a person is working against a group of person, its not surprising the group of people will begin working against that person. Just because the motive is belief doesn't excuse it.[/quote]

Sorry but the 1st Amendment protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference, and the gay community is trying to take that right away from me, and impose their beliefs on me and everyone else who is Christian or morals based on faith. Do you not see the hypocrisy? Where it is OK for GLAAD and the gay community to infringe on my right to worship how I see fit, but not for me to support the traditional view of marriage without being called a bigot or worse?

I posted my point of view before he resigned, but I'm stunned that so many people here are too stupid to see that morality is merely a collective agreement of the majority and continually changing. One guy falls behind the curve and instead of showing patience, we throw him under the bus?

What do you think is more likely to have a positive effect on a man; working in a inclusive environment with LGBT colleagues? Or his likely perception of the time when he was forced out of his job?

What have we really gained from this?

He's in his 50's. His working career was likely nearing completion anyway, and his personal beliefs are being phased out with his generation (and the couple following it).

There was little chance of having a "positive effect" on him, his beliefs seem to have been set for decades. As with most entrenched political issues, you're largely waiting for older generations to die.

What we've gained is reduced tolerance of intolerance.

Maybe take a look at Obama's shifting view on same-sex marriage since 2008? He's 52. Despite the adage, you can teach an old dog new tricks. There's always hope.

Sorry but the 1st Amendment protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference, and the gay community is trying to take that right away from me, and impose their beliefs on me and everyone else who is Christian or morals based on faith.

You and the other dumb pieces of shit misappropriating this kind of inflammatory metaphor keep forgetting that actual jack-boots have been used to deny homosexuals and other minorities their rights....

So, time for retribution, eh? Is that it?

"See how YOU like it" is the highest form of hypocrisy in the history of Mankind.

Nope. Being on the right side of an issue is a virtue. Denouncing scum who diminish the rights of others is another.

Sorry but the 1st Amendment protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference, and the gay community is trying to take that right away from me, and impose their beliefs on me and everyone else who is Christian or morals based on faith.

How?

Meh.. he's just a playing victim, the natural state of the losers of the game of history. Much like the Confederates in fact.

I must say I'm disappointed but not surprised. Why destroy someone's career over his personal values, especially when he made clear that they would have no bearing on his work in technology?

Because his "personal values" make him a bigot. If someone were a racist in their personal life, do you think that racial bias is absent in the rest of their decision making (personal, professional or whatever)? It's ultimately one (complex) neural network - one mind.

So then all Christians that feel the same way as Eich are also bigots? Sorry but we are not, as our faith tells us that marriage is between one man and one women. That is not bigotry that is defining marriage traditionally as between a man and a woman. Eich has worked for Mozilla for over 15 years, and those views did not just evolve over night, as they were ingrained by his faith. He manged to keep them out of his corporate life and was only made public when he was made CEO. It never affected the way he ran his department so how would it affect the way he ran the company? Because GLAAD and a lot of the gay community is Christian-phobic?

Yes. Yes it does make you a bigot.

You feel that just because your religion tells you that homosexuality is a sin, that people who are homosexual must be subhuman because they are godless sinners. Whether or not you take action against them is irrelevant to the point that this is a bigoted position to take.

Not everyone in this country feels that homosexuality is a sin, much less something to be ashamed of. And our country has evolved to the point where we do not enshrine discrimination as the law of the land. Not only that, but your freedom of religion would not be infringed upon if same-sex marriage became legal. You can still believe what you want, and you are free to speak your mind. Just know that people who don't agree with you are also free to respond in kind. That is how free speech works.

You're free to believe what you want, but know that the belief you posed above is bigoted.

Please point out where I stated that being gay is a sin. I never said no such thing, so do not make up statements and out right fabrications. And stay on point. I was commenting on my 1st amendment right to worship how I so choose and the gay community, led by GLAAD, is infringing on that and the traditional viewpoint of marriage being between one man and one woman. Do yo understand that now? Sorry but the 1st Amendment protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference, and the gay community is trying to take that right away from me, and impose their beliefs on me and everyone else who is Christian or whose morals are based on faith. Do you not see the hypocrisy? Where it is OK for GLAAD and the gay community to infringe on my right to worship how I see fit, but not for me to support the traditional view of marriage without being called a bigot or worse?